Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] Re: [build] Headers rule does both too much and too little

Subject: Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] Re: [build] Headers rule does both too much and too little
From: Belcourt, Kenneth (kbelco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-18 14:20:54

On Feb 18, 2014, at 12:13 PM, John Maddock wrote:

> On 18/02/2014 18:57, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> John Maddock wrote:
>>> Too little:
>>> 
>>> The headers under boost/config/ are included via macros so aren't
>>> placed in the dependency graph.  I can fix this easily enough in the
>>> Boost.Config tests, but ideally this should be fixed at the top level
>>> by making everything under boost/config/ a dependency of
>>> boost/config.hpp.
>> 
>> You can fix that from your side - if you're so inclined - by including
>> the omitted headers in an #if 0 block to enable the scanner to see them.
>> 
>> Currently a number of tests seems to be failing due to a missing
>> config/user.hpp, so it's a real problem. But there's also something else
>> that is wrong with the headers, as other tests seem to be using older
>> header versions, and that doesn't seem to be caused by a missed dependency.
> 
> I see that as well - there are quite a number of failures in the Math lib tests which I simply do not see locally (and a few of us have tried to reproduce).  There are frankly too many to try and track down one at a time by pestering the test-runners: who probably have better things to do anyway.  Frankly it's all rather discouraging :-(

I can try to help if you can point me to any unexpected (non-reproducible) problem with either Sandia tester (Mac or Linux)?